Tuesday, March 31, 2009

As most of Europe does. Even though most Swiss are themselves ethnically German.

"The Swiss government's racism watchdog issued a warning Friday about rising animosity toward German immigrants, who are being stereotyped as boorish, domineering and even Nazis.

Swiss laws forbid spreading hateful ideologies or discrimination against groups because of their race, ethnicity or religion. But the laws have never been invoked -- or needed -- to protect Germans.

Anti-German sentiment has risen, however, as Switzerland has opened its labor market to its European neighbors. Germans have taken the greatest advantage, with more than 220,000 citizens now living permanently in the neighboring country.

German citizens have come to dominate Swiss universities, hospitals and highly trained professional work in recent years. The president of the Federal Commission against Racism, Georg Kreis, said the economic crisis and rising unemployment has been making people increasingly see Germans as unwanted competitors.

Hard to believe that the Germans need protection from anyone. I think the Swiss are entitled to grumble if they want to. Sort of amusing, though, that Germans in Switzerland are now in the prominent positions that Jews occupied in pre-Hitler Germany. But I can't see a Kristallnacht against Germans coming up.

A LEFTIST gets banned for once. Is this unprecedented? I guess Ayers was too much on the nose even for the honchos at Boston College.

"Bill Ayers, known for his involvement in the Weather Underground, an activist group formed in a split from Students for a Democratic Society in 1969 that gained notoriety for its use of violent tactics, as well as for his work as an education theorist, was to speak at Boston College Monday before the event was canceled by the University on Friday. The event had been organized by Americans for Informed Democracy.

"Inviting Bill Ayers to Boston College in no way sanctions his activities in the past, especially regarding the Weather Underground," Madormo said. "The lecture is merely an opportunity to hear from one of the nation's preeminent scholars on issues of urban education reform. At a university, we have the responsibility to hear all voices even if we disagree with them. Above all, this is an issue of free speech and allowing the student body to hear a unique and respected academic viewpoint," he added later in a release.

"We have the responsibility to hear all voices even if we disagree with them". Great sentiments. I wonder if he said that when lots of his fellow students were protesting the visit of GWB's Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice? Leftists are great at claiming free speech for themselves while denying it to others.

Monday, March 30, 2009

Muslim prosecuted for hate speech in India

We read:

"The Election Commission on Friday issued notice to Congress leader Imran Kidwai for reportedly giving an inflammatory speech during an election meeting in Chandigarh on March 15. He has been asked to reply to the notice by Sunday.

Citing Kidwai's speech, EC said it was inflammatory and amounted to promoting enmity between different groups on religious grounds. EC also said that none of the Congress leaders present in the meeting, that included Mohsina Kidwai and Pawan Bansal, have neither contradicted the statements made by him nor has the party issued any statement to dissociate itself from the remarks reportedly made by Imran Kidwai.

In his speech made in the meeting, Imran Kidwai was reported to have said, "I regret that that I am not a mufti because a mufti issues fatwas. If I were a mufti, I would have issued a fatwa and that would have been that a Muslim siding with BJP is akin to his committing blasphemy and I can prove this"

"Police in Uttar Pradesh on Saturday arrested Varun Gandhi, a great-grandson of the country's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, over allegations he made inflammatory comments against Muslims.

A speech in early March by Gandhi has been widely played in the local media in which he allegedly threatens to cut off the hands of those who harm Hindus, and crudely compares a rival Muslim candidate to Osama Bin Laden.

Looks like India is setting an example of one law for all. A bit different from America, where Christians get attacked for what they say but Muslims can say anything they like.

Neither statent is very radical, though. Threatening retaliation against attackers is surely as old as the hills. But Hindu/Muslim tensions are a major problem in India and lead to many deaths so I suppose one can understand the Indian government's wish to put a cork in it.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Second thoughts on political advertising ban?

We read:

"Hillary Clinton had her silver screen moment in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, when the Justices heard a case that could determine the reach of campaign finance laws to control political advertising. The tone of the oral argument also hinted that five Justices on the Court may be increasingly leery of campaign-finance limits.

During the 2008 Presidential primaries, a nonprofit group called Citizens United produced a 90-minute documentary chronicling the exploits of then-Senator Clinton. Let's just say that "Hillary: the Movie" was not an endorsement. Because the film, and trailers for it, were scheduled to run in the heat of the race on cable TV, it ran afoul of campaign finance "reform" law.

Under the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act, also known as McCain-Feingold, electioneering communications paid by corporations or unions that "expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate" cannot run within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election. Citizens United filed suit against the Federal Election Commission to assert its right to distribute the film.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a federal district court agreed with the FEC that the ban on electioneering communications should just as reasonably apply to a 90-minute movie as to a two-minute advertisement. Writ large, that's scary news. According to Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, who argued the case, the government could theoretically regulate other forms of pre-election corporate speech as well, including books and the Internet.

"That's pretty incredible," said Justice Samuel Alito. "You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?" Yes, Mr. Stewart said, if a corporation or union were paying for it. It would be possible to "prohibit the publication of the book using the corporate treasury funds."

With Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito has previously taken a cautious, piecemeal approach to campaign finance law. But as the current case shows, McCain-Feingold is a blunt instrument that gives federal bureaucrats the power to decide what kind of campaign advertising is allowed during an election. If "Hillary: the Movie" isn't allowed, then Michael Moore's documentaries should be banned, and newspaper endorsements would also be suspect despite a specific carve-out in the law. If newspapers didn't have that carve-out, then maybe so many editors wouldn't cheerlead for this kind of law.

McCain-Feingold is a frontal assault on political speech, and President Bush's decision to sign it while claiming to dislike it was one of the worst moments of his eight years in office. Citizens United gives the Justices a new opportunity to chip away at this attack on the First Amendment, and even better if they use it to declare the whole thing unconstitutional.

"Alliance Defense Fund attorneys secured a victory from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit over Missouri Department of Revenue officials Thursday, clearing the way for the creation of “Choose Life” specialty license plates. In the lawsuit, ADF attorneys alleged the state violated Choose Life of Missouri’s free speech rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination when it refused to approve the specialty plate based on its objection to the pro-life message while allowing the messages of other organizations on other specialty plates.

“The state shouldn’t discriminate against pro-life organizations for their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster, who argued before the 8th Circuit in October of last year. “We are pleased with the 8th Circuit’s decision to recognize the unconstitutionality of the state’s approval process and look forward to the inclusion of Choose Life in Missouri’s specialty license plate program.”

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Three teen girls are suing after being threatened with prosecution for 'sexting'

We read:

"Three teenage girls are suing a US prosecutor who accused them of peddling "child pornography" after semi-nude pictures of them were sent by phone to friends. The complaint is the latest legal wrangle over "sexting" - the practice of sending nude or semi-nude photos to friends by mobile phone.

Teachers alerted the authorities after discovering a waist-up image of two girls covered just by a bra, and another image of a girl topless.

District Attorney George Skumanik called for the girls to undergo five weeks of behaviour courses and take a drug test or face prosecution, according to a letter apparently sent to the teenagers' parents.

The American Civil Liberties Union, a co-signatory to the complaint, said Mr Skumanik's threat was unconstitutional, and prosecution could have landed the girls on the sex offenders register, blighting future job prospects. "In many states these charges would land these kids on (sex offender) databases ... for ten years or more, and prevent them from getting many types of jobs," said Witold Walczak, Legal Director for the ACLU in Pennsylvania. "That's a heck of a lesson for a kid who probably doesn't even realise she is doing something wrong."

In the letter, Mr Skumanik described the pictures as "provocative" and insisted the teens need to "gain an understanding of how (their) actions were wrong" as well as "what it means to be a girl in today's society".

According to a survey by a US family planning organisation, published in December, 20 per cent of American teenagers said they had participated in sexting.

I can see no reason for prosecutions over "sexting". Adult porn is freely available so the only excuse for these prosecutions is that they involve "child" pornography. But why is child pornography banned? It is banned to protect children from harm. But clearly nobody has been harmed in these cases. The kids did it themselves. Nobody stood over them or forced them to do anything. So I applaud the ACLU in this case.

"Gordon Brown’s efforts to smooth a path to international agreement at next week’s G20 summit in London hit a bump in Brazil yesterday when he was told that the financial crisis was the fault of the “white and blue-eyed”.

President Lula da Silva [above] of Brazil warned that there would be spicy discussions and “tough confrontation” next Wednesday as world leaders faced up to who should pay the costs of the banking crisis.

As Mr Brown looked on during a press conference, Mr Lula da Silva said that action was urgent since it would be intolerable for the poor — who were blameless for the collapse of financial markets — to suffer the most from its effects.

“This was a crisis that was fostered and boosted by the irrational behaviour of people who were white and blue-eyed, who before the crisis they looked like they knew everything about economics, but now have demonstrated they know nothing about economics,” he said, mocking the “gods of wisdom” who had had to be bailed out. “The part of humanity that is responsible should be the part that pays for the crisis,” he added.

Friday, March 27, 2009

M. Le Pen still making waves

Sloppy accusations of racism are sadly common and the characterization of France's Jean-Marie Le Pen as a holocaust denier is another example of that sloppiness. His remarks reported below are similar to those he has always made and show that he does NOT deny that the Shoah happened. He simply regards it as unimportant -- a view to which he is perfectly entitled, though I myself violently disagree with it. It is certainly true that Jewish deaths were greatly exceeded by other deaths during WWII and that the events concerned are now well in the past so M. Le Pen's judgment, that there are present-day issues of great concern -- such as illegal immigration and Muslim hostility -- that we should be devoting our attention to instead, is at least arguable. That he has been prosecuted for expressing his views is certainly a lamentable comment on the state of free speech in Europe. If a prominent politician cannot say what he thinks, what hope is there for others? The Fascist instincts in Europe obviously run deep -- with suppression of free speech being a strong manifestation of them.

"The prospect of Jean-Marie Le Pen becoming the father of the European Parliament led MEPs yesterday to start a frantic attempt to change their own rules to stop the far-right French politician from presiding over the new chamber. Under the Parliament's rules its inaugural session must be overseen by its doyen - the oldest MEP - which will be Mr Le Pen, 81, if he is re-elected for the French National Front in the elections in June.

Members who have just realised this are making a last-minute effort to block him, perhaps to give the honour of running the inaugural session on July 14 to the youngest member of the new Parliament. The embarrassment felt by French MEPs opposed to Mr Le Pen is acute because July 14 is also Bastille Day, France's national day.

Mr Le Pen, who has convictions in France and Germany for denying the Holocaust and for calling it a detail of history, poured petrol on the flames by repeating the same phrase in the European Parliament chamber in Strasbourg. “I just said that the gas chambers were a detail of Second World War history, which is clear,” said Mr Le Pen, a long-standing critic of the European Union who also opposes immigration, abortion and gay rights.

Mr Le Pen stubbornly remains a prominent figure in European politics despite his far-right views, causing a shock in the 2002 French presidential elections in reaching the final run-off by knocking out Lionel Jospin, the Socialist candidate. He was fined 1.2 million francs (£171,000) for making his remarks about the Holocaust in a radio interview in 1987. “That proved the state in which we find the freedom of speech in Europe and France,” he said yesterday, referring to the case.

Martin Schulz, the German head of the Socialists, said: “I am concerned by the fact that a Holocaust denier could preside over the opening session of the European Parliament.”

He is a former member of the French Foreign Legion (which is open to Frenchmen as well as foreigners) so his claim to being a French patriot stands up well in comparison with many other French politicians.

Sir David Jason forced to say sorry after making a 'racist' joke on live radio

From Britain:

"It was meant to be a bit of harmless fun. But when Sir David Jason made a joke about Pakistanis on a live radio show some didn't see the funny side.

Last night, the award-winning actor found himself accused of making inappropriate remarks and being out of touch with reality after his joke on Christian O'Connnell's Breakfast Show. The 69-year-old star was appearing on the Who's Calling Christian feature - where celebrities ring Absolute Radio with a chance to win £20,000 for charity.

Sir David, best known for his role as the gaffe-prone Del Boy in Only Fools and Horses, got into hot water when he was asked to leave a question for the next guest. He replied: 'What do you call a Pakistani cloakroom attendant?' Following a pause, he then delivered the punchline: 'Me hat, me coat.'

It is a play on words around the name of the political and spiritual leader Mahatma Gandhi - who was from India, not Pakistan.

But last night Mohammed Shafiq, of Muslim charity the Ramadhan Foundation, said: 'These are inappropriate remarks about a stereotype that may have held a little water in the 50s and 60s but is not true to today. He should've known better.'

A spokesman for Absolute Radio said there had been no complaints to the station from listeners, but O'Connell would apologise on-air today. The joke was edited out of the show's podcast.

David Jason is a brilliant character actor whom I have long admired but that must be the weakest joke I have ever heard. Perhaps you had to be there. But ANYTHING he said about Pakistanis would have been "racist", of course.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Criticism of homosexuality to become illegal in Britain

The British Leftist government is very Fascistic with its ever expanding speech restrictions:

"The government has defeated an amendment in the House of Commons that would have created a defence of "free speech" in a bill that is designed to criminalise incitement of hatred in relation to sexual orientation.

Campaigners including the Blackadder star Rowan Atkinson and the gay actor Christopher Biggins had argued that the clause relating to hatred in the Coroners and Justice Bill could limit freedom of expression and could lead to prosecutions over gay "jokes".

The Coroners and Justice Bill is being used to remove an amendment to legislation passed last year that allowed the "discussion or criticism" of sexual practices last year. The amendment that was defeated today by 154 votes, would have effectively re-instated the defence of free speech.

Labour MP for Leicestershire North West, David Taylor said his proposals would have made it clear that "discussion or criticism of sexual conduct is not caught by the homophobia law"....

Justice minister Bridget Prentice said that banning gay hate speech would protect victims of threatening behaviour. But that it would be applied in a reasonable way so that someone expressing concerns about homosexuality "do not need to fear that they will be caught by the criminal law." [If that is so, why not include it in the law?]

Last week, the Blackadder star Rowan Atkinson warned a House of Lords committee that the government risked creating a culture of "censoriousness" by removing free speech.... "I do not believe that legislation of such a censorious nature as that of hate speech, carrying as it does the risk of a seven-year jail sentence for saying the wrong thing in the wrong way, can ever by justified merely by the desire to ‘send the right message’."

He cited Christian groups as being "particularly concerned" the law will be used against them, adding that "heavy-handed police intervention" had been used before in instances of groups condemning gays and lesbians.

"The US Supreme Court takes up a closely watched case on Tuesday examining when a documentary film may violate election law and become an illegal form of campaign advocacy.

The case centers on a Federal Election Commission (FEC) decision last year to block pay-per-view broadcasts of a 90-minute film called Hillary: The Movie, which presents a negative assessment of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s record as a senator and first lady. The film was produced by Citizens United, a Washington-based conservative group.

The justices are being asked to decide whether the FEC’s action was unconstitutional government censorship that violated the documentary producers’ free speech rights.”

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Some VERY "incorrect" speech

This is much-quoted on the net but Snopes.com appears to have no mention of it so it seems to be authentic.

"T. B. Bechtel, a part-time City Councilman from Midland , TX , was asked on a local live radio talk show, just what he thought of the allegations of torture of the Iraqi prisoners. His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience.

HIS STATEMENT:

'If hooking up an Iraqi prisoner's nuts to a car's battery cables will save just one Texas GI's life, then I have just three things to say,'

"BROADCASTER Fox News has copped a spray from the Canadian defence minister after a late-night host ridiculed the country's troops.

Greg Gutfeld joked about a Canadian general's suggestion that his troops would need a year-long break in operations to regroup and restock equipment after deployment in Afghanistan. "The Canadian military wants to take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white Capri pants,'' he said. "Isn't this the perfect time to invade this ridiculous country? They have no army!"

Panellist Doug Benson replied: "I didn't even know they were in the war. I thought that's where you go when you don't want to fight. Go chill in Canada."

Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the comments - now circulating online - were "crass". "It is insensitive and it is in fact disgusting given the timing, when Canada is just receiving back four fallen heroes today. "There should be an apology to the families in particular and to the Canadian Forces and to Canada generally, given the sacrifice and the commitment that we have demonstrated in Afghanistan."

Gutfeld said his show Red Eye was satirical and topics were "addressed in a lighthearted, humorous and ridiculous manner".

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

The announcement below was from over a month back and we will see in a monent what has become of it:

"In another effort to undo the legacy of George W. Bush's presidency, the Obama administration is searching for alternatives to the term "war on terror."

In recent days, Obama's national-security officials have had brainstorming sessions to come up with different ways to describe the U.S. government's efforts to defeat Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, according to administration sources who asked not to be identified talking about private discussions.

What's being sought is a more precise phrase that can recast the U.S. government's counterterrorism fight in ideological as well as military terms. Obama publicly signaled the new approach this week. When asked about the "war on terror" phrase by CNN's Anderson Cooper, Obama said, "Well you know, I think it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations . Words matter in this situation because one of the ways we're going to win this struggle is through the battle of hearts and minds."

So what is the WOT now called? Apparently it is a “novel type of armed conflict against armed groups". See here. I always thought "war on terror" was pretty wishy washy but the Obama version really beats the band.

"A Washington, D.C., man who believes Barack Obama probably isn't eligible to be president – and colorfully stated as much to a federal judge who dismissed a case challenging Obama's residency in the White House – says he got a visit from U.S. marshals for his exercise of free speech.

Jesse Merrell told WND he was reacting to Judge James Robertson's decision to throw out a case challenging Obama's eligibility because the issue had been thoroughly "twittered." Merrell sarcastically gave the judge a "good-for-you."

"How dare people use a flimsy thing like the Constitution to darken your sanctimonious door!" he wrote to the judge. "The insane idea that a blue-gum baboon slashing our Constitution has to prove U.S. citizenship – as our silly old Constitution demands – is too absurd to consider in the sacred chambers of the tiny tin gods of the Potomac, adorning the royal purple and sipping Jim Jones Kool-Aid.

"Thanks to smug, slimy shysters like you, Obama gets a free ride – snootily stomping on our foolish Constitution, which supercilious idiots like you have long ago shredded for their own stupid opinions!" Merrell continued in the letter, a copy of which he provided to WND. He finished with his speculation on what "ought" to happen to the judge, a physical act not appropriate for a family-oriented report.

A short time later, he said he found two U.S. marshals on his doorstep. "I told them unless the First Amendment had been repealed, or they had a warrant for my arrest, we had nothing to discuss," he continued. "But they insisted on coming in, and making further threats.

WND called the U.S. marshals service for comment, but there was no comment on the specific case. A WND message left for one of the officers involved also was not returned.

Monday, March 23, 2009

College backs down on order banning two pro-life students from campus

The common academic view that Christianity (but not Islam) is medieval ignorance was being acted on yet again:

"Pomona College banned two pro-life students from campus last week after they videotaped the question-and-answer session during a Planned Parenthood representative's talk and asked the representative tough questions about recent Planned Parenthood scandals. Pomona rescinded its ban this week after facing strong opposition from students, faculty, and alumni.

The pro-life students, David Daleiden, 20, and Kyle Kinneberg, 21, are members of the youth-led right-to-life advocacy group Live Action. Daleiden and Kinneberg both attend Claremont McKenna College, part of the Claremont College Consortium together with Pomona and three other undergraduate institutions. A hand-delivered letter from Pomona's Dean of Women Marcelle Holmes notified the students of the ban, claiming their videotaping had been "against college policy."

But Daleiden, president of Live Action's Claremont chapter and director of research for the national organization, said Pomona never produced the specific policy they said his group had violated, and that he and Kinneberg were denied their due process rights under the Claremont Colleges' Policy on Demonstrations.

"When alumni found out about this Orwellian situation, they were outraged," explained Daleiden. "Pomona accused us of conspiring to 'disrupt the proceedings, intimidate participants, and chill the free exchange of ideas,'" Daleiden said. "But nothing could be farther from the truth. We were entirely respectful when we asked our questions -- as our video shows."

"Why should I care that a British MP has been barred from visiting Canada? George Galloway, a politician whose views offend many, was to speak at an anti-war conference in Toronto on March 30 -- until he was told he can't enter Canada. Barring someone from expressing views, even repugnant ones, undermines freedom of speech, civil libertarians say.

On what grounds was he banned? The government said Galloway is a security threat under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Section 34. That seems like a good reason.

Section 34 allows the government to bar someone for espionage, terrorism, or acts of violence that "might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada," for example. It also covers "subversion by force."

But? The act contains broad language and can be "very problematic," said University of Ottawa law professor Errol Mendes. Section 34(1)(d) for instance, allows us to bar people for "being a danger to the security of Canada" without specifying precisely what sort of danger they are

This is just as arbitrary as the British government barring Geert Wilders from Britain. Nobody has anything to fear from Galloway, anyhow. You can read the sort of crap he speaks in the media every day.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

"President Barack Obama has apologised for a gaffe in which he described his bowling skills as akin to participants in the Special Olympics.

Mr Obama made the mistake during an interview on Thursday night on The Tonight Show with host Jay Leno, the first time a sitting US president had been on the show.

Talking about living in the White House, Mr Obama said he had been practicing his bowling in the home's bowling alley and had scored a 129 out of a possible 300. It was an improvement on the embarrassing 37 he had rolled during a stop on the presidential campaign trail a year ago. "It's like - it was like Special Olympics or something," Mr Obama said.

The Special Olympics is a global nonprofit organisation serving some 200 million people with intellectual disabilities, with a presence in nearly 200 countries worldwide. They compete in sporting events like the real Olympics.

Soon after the Jay Leno interview, Mr Obama telephoned Special Olympics chairman Tim Shriver to apologize. Mr Shriver told ABC's Good Morning America that Mr Obama had apologised "in a way that I think was very moving" and that he said "he did not intend to humiliate the population, didn't want to embarrass or give anybody any more reason for pain or kind of suffering".

If it had been GWB apologizing, the words used to describe that would not have been called "moving". It takes very little imagination to say what the words would have been. How about: "Hypocritical apology from Bush"? And they would still be talking about "Bush's contempt for disabled people" a year later. Remember how in 2006 the newspapers never let it go after Republican Senator George Allen used in an interview a meaningless word that the Left, after much searching, interpreted as meaning something bad, not in English, but in the French spoken in the now-defunct Belgian Congo?

"The BBC has apologised after a Match of the Day pundit likened a tackle in a Premiership match to rape. Former West Ham United manager Alan Pardew, 47, was condemned by women's groups for trivialising sexual violence. He had been analysing a tackle by Chelsea midfielder Michael Essien on Manchester City striker Ched Evans in Sunday's game.

Mr Pardew said on Match of the Day 2: 'Ched Evans is a strong boy but (Essien) knocks him off ... he absolutely rapes him.'

Lee Eggleston of Rape Crisis England and Wales, today slammed Pardew for 'trivialising' sexual violence. She said: 'The use of this language is completely inappropriate and I'm shocked to hear about it - I can't imagine why Pardew has said it. 'That something as serious as sexual assault has been misused to describe football is appalling.

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Black grievance criticized for once

We read:

"The top municipal judge in Dallas faces calls for his resignation over a racially charged column he wrote in a weekly newspaper. Administrative Judge C. Victor Lander apologized Tuesday for writing in the Dallas Weekly that "black folks have been cleaning up white folks' messes for hundreds of years."

Lander, who is black, said he wrote the column earlier this month to praise reform efforts of the city's first black prosecutor, Craig Watkins.

A member of the Dallas City Council isn't buying the explanation - calling for Lander's resignation. The council appoints municipal judges in Dallas. Lander has been a municipal judge for 12 years.

Naughty, naughty: Australian politician offered sex toy so she could 'go screw herself'

We read:

"Police were called to check harassment claims against a Sydney councillor who put a motion to buy a sex toy for NSW Fair Trading Minister Virginia Judge [above] so she could go "screw herself".

Independent Strathfield councillor Danny Lim lodged the motion last month, recommending that the council purchase a vibrator for Ms Judge to encourage her "to stop screwing with the people of Strathfield and screw herself instead".

Council refused to table the motion but The Daily Telegraph can reveal Ms Judge has lodged a complaint with the council calling for action against Mr Lim. "The pattern of harassment and verbal abuse is intimidating and upsetting to me and my family," Ms Judge told council.

If the poor darling can't take the heat, she should get out of the kitchen. Danny Lim is of Asian ancestry but he is nonetheless a classic Australian character with no respect for BS. The voters like him.

Friday, March 20, 2009

A chaplain must not mention God??

We read:

"A chaplain at a Florida hospice says she has resigned due to a ban on use of the words "God" or "Lord" in certain public settings. The Rev. Mirta Signorelli said that Hospice by the Sea in Boca Raton told her and other chaplains on Feb. 23 to "cease and desist from using God in prayers," the Florida Sun-Sentinel reported.

That ban on religious references, she said, rendered her incapable of doing her job. "I can't do chaplain's work if I can't say 'God' — if I'm scripted," Signorelli told the Sentinel.

Hospice by the Sea CEO Paula Alderson said the restriction applies only to staff meetings. Ministers, priests and rabbis still are free to speak about God when counseling patients or families in private. "I was sensitive to the fact that we don't impose religion on our staff, and that it is not appropriate in the context of a staff meeting to use certain phrases or 'God' or 'Holy Father,' because some of our staff don't believe at all," she told the Sentinel.

But Signorelli said the policy also forced her to watch her language when leading prayer in the hospice chapel, and when meeting patients in public settings like nursing homes or weekly patient conferences with doctors, nurses and social workers, the Sentinel reported. "If you take God away from me, it's like taking a medical tool away from a nurse,” she told the paper.

The "child pornography" excuse used by the Leftist Federal government is shown to be a fraud. ACMA is just a would-be Gestapo. "Gestapo" is an abbreviation for "Geheime Staatspolizei" or "Secret State Police". Judge for yourself whether it fits

"The cornerstone of the Federal Government's nationwide internet filter, a "blacklist" of over 2000 websites to be blocked, has been leaked online. The list of 2395 websites was leaked by website Wikileaks today about 11am (Qld time), a website which itself was this week added to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) blacklist for leaking a similar list of censored websites in Denmark.

According to reports, up to half of the banned websites on the list are not even related to child pornography, but include entries in online dictionary Wikipedia, single links to particular YouTube videos, euthanasia sites, the website of a tour operator and a Queensland dentist.

The current list of banned websites stands at 2395, but the [NeoFascist] Government hopes to eventually expand the list to 10,000 sites Australians will be prevented from accessing.

If you Google "Wikileaks", you will find a link to the report on their front page. I could give you the link but I am threatened with a fine of $11,000 a day if I do -- even though there is NO pornography on the Wikileaks page

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Euro chiefs ban 'Miss' and 'Mrs'

We read:

"The European Parliament has banned the terms 'Miss' and 'Mrs' in case they offend female MEPs. The politically correct rules also mean a ban on Continental titles, such as Madame and Mademoiselle, Frau and Fraulein and Senora and Senorita. Guidance issued in a new 'Gender-Neutral Language' pamphlet instead orders politicians to address female members by their full name only.

Officials have also ordered that 'sportsmen' be called 'athletes', 'statesmen' be referred to as 'political leaders' and even that 'synthetic' or 'artificial' be used instead of 'man-made'. The guidance lists banned terms for describing professions, including fireman, air hostess, headmaster, policeman, salesman, manageress, cinema usherette and male nurse. However MEPs are still allowed to refer to 'midwives' as there is no accepted male version of the job description. ["midspouse"?] The booklet also admits that "no gender-neutral term has been successfully proposed" to replace 'waiter' and 'waitress', allowing parliamentarians to use these words in a restaurant or cafe.

It has been circulated by Harold Romer, the parliament's secretary general, to the 785 MEPs working in Brussels and Strasbourg.

Struan Stevenson, a Scottish Conservative MEP described the guidelines as "political correctness gone mad." He said: "We have seen the EU institutions try to ban the bagpipes and dictate the shape of bananas, but now they see determined to tell us which words we are entitled to use in our own language." Philip Bradbourn, another Conservative MEP, vowed to ignore the booklet, which he described as a "waste of taxpayers' money" and called on Mr Romer to reveal its cost. He added: "I will have no part of it. I will continue to use my own language and expressions, which I have used all my life, and will not be instructed by this institution or anyone else in these matters."

Seven years ago, an attempt to amend noise laws came close to effectively outlawing bagpipes. However, a number of bizarre EU rules remain in place, including a directive stating that every pair of rubber boots must be supplied with a user's manual in 12 languages.

"A federal judge in Washington, D.C, dismissed a case yesterday brought by Michael Newdow and the American Humanist Association seeking to ban prayer and the phrase "so help me God" from presidential inaugurations.

Newdow, a California attorney who pushed a case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in an unsuccessful effort to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, previously joined Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and others in an attempt to obtain an injunction barring pastors Rick Warren and Joseph E. Lowery from praying at Barack Obama's inauguration.

As WND reported, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton refused to halt Inauguration Day prayers and rejected Barker and Newdow's requests to stop Chief Justice Roberts from saying "so help me God" at the end of the presidential oath.

In court yesterday, Judge Walton again ruled against Newdow and company in the atheists' attempt to ban prayer and "so help me God" from future inaugurations.

The Pacific Justice Institute, a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, represented pastors Warren and Lowery in the case. Brad Dacus, president of PJI, told WND, "We are pleased that the court has made it clear that religious expression by individuals at public gatherings and public forums is not a violation of the Constitution."

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Illegal to display the First Amendment??

We read:

"A Florida couple won the initial round in a free-speech battle today, as a federal magistrate recommended the city of Clearwater not fine a local bait and tackle shop for displaying the First Amendment atop a mural of marine life on its business.

U.S. Magistrate Elizabeth Jenkins made the recommendation to a federal judge in the case of Herb and Lori Quintero, who faced fines of $500 per day for posting a giant Constitution as well as designs of game fish on their store, the Complete Angler.

"Neither the painting nor the banner are commercial speech," Jenkins stated, explaining the city would likely lose the full case in court. "Although the painting may occasionally inspire the purchase of bait and tackle from the Angler, the painting is not limited to merely proposing commercial transactions."

Citing a previous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, Jenkins also noted, "the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury."

"Schwarz" is the ordinary German word for "black" and Yiddish is a German dialect with a few Hebrew words thrown in. The English derivative of the word is "swarthy"

"Comedian Jackie Mason used what some say is a racial epithet in describing President Barack Obama during his act Thursday night, infuriating at least several people in the crowd.

During a performance at Feinstein's at Loews Regency in NYC, Mason referred to Obama as a "schwartza" -- some say it's equivalent to the "N" word -- others say it's just part of the Yiddish culture and a literal translation of the word "Black."

We're told one person walked out fuming, "He's more offensive to the Jews than Madoff tonight."

We spoke with Mason by phone a few minutes ago, and he was outraged at the criticism, saying, "I'm not going to defend myself. Chris Rock has told a lot more jokes about whites than I have against Blacks. What about the demeaning words Blacks say about Jews?"

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Or is it offensive to portray Obama as dancing? Nobody seems to know. They are just offended and that is that.

"An elementary school principal is barring a fifth-grader from wearing a Barack Obama mask in the school's talent show because parents have complained it's inappropriate.

Dru Lechert-Kelly, 11, hoped to dress presidentially and dance to a YouTube parody that features an Obama look-alike and a rap called "I Can Do Whatever I Like." The skit features him in a navy blue suit, white shirt, red tie, black shoes and an Obama mask purchased at a costume shop -- one like Obama himself once donned for a Saturday Night Live sketch. The choreographed routine rehearsed Thursday ends with Dru on the floor in the splits and was met with applause from students and teachers.

But some parents objected. "I talked to the parents who are coordinating the talent show, and they feel it's inappropriate and potentially offensive," said Steve Powell, principal of Llewellyn Elementary School in Portland. He declined to say specifically why it might be offensive.

"The bizarre exchange took place during a newspaper review which was broadcast at the end of the ten o'clock bulletin on the BBC News 24 channel. Chris Eakin, a BBC presenter, was commenting on a story about a chimpanzee at the Furuvik Zoo in Sweden who collected stones to throw at visitors.

Eakin then asked viewers: "Can you see any likeness?" before handing back to veteran newsreader George Alagiah. The respected presenter of the BBC's News at Six initially looked a little surprised before attempting to laugh off the comment. Alagiah, 53, who was born in Sri Lanka, changed the topic quickly and continued with the rest of the programme...

However, in the wake of the Carol Thatcher race row, and the comments made by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand to the actor Andrew Sachs on a Radio 2 broadcast, the corporation has been quick to issue an apology.

Monday, March 16, 2009

English people MUST understand Scottish accents?

This is a real lulu. Anybody who has been there will know that a Scots accent can be hard to understand

"The most senior Labour Party official in Britain was caught up in a bizarre racism row last night after he was accused of insulting people who speak with a Scottish accent. A formal complaint of racism was made against Labour General Secretary Ray Collins when he asked for a `translation' of comments made by a man from Glasgow.

The race row started when Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman, took a question-and-answer session at the party's gathering at Dundee's Caird Hall. After some exchanges with delegates, it became clear she was struggling to understand and asked her audience if they were also having `problems with the acoustics'.

When no one agreed, she took a question from a Labour activist from Motherwell. Ms Harman appeared confused by his strong Lanarkshire accent and complained she could not hear what he had said. Mr Collins intervened and said to Scottish Labour Party General Secretary Colin Smyth: `Can you translate that for me?' He then turned to the audience and said: `I have asked Colin to join us, so he can translate.'

Mrs Fee, a Glasgow-based shop steward with shop workers' union USDAW, told The Mail on Sunday: `I heard Mr Collins's remarks clearly. I was upset by what he said and considered it to be racist. The man had a normal Scottish accent and most people could understand him perfectly well.' Several delegates were said to have complained that Mr Collins's conduct was `anti-Scottish'.

"Alliance Defense Fund attorneys representing a Christian man reached a favorable settlement with the New York Department of Transportation, which agreed to allow Daniel Burritt's trailer donning a gospel message to remain on his private business property along a public highway. The tractor trailer had previously been cited as a "public nuisance," and NYDOT warned Burritt that it would be forcibly removed if the Christian message remained visible from the highway.

"No Christian should be singled out and penalized for sharing his beliefs," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. "After reaching this settlement with NYDOT, we are pleased Mr. Burritt can now freely enjoy his First Amendment right to display a religious message on his own property."

In August 2007, Burritt placed a tractor trailer--where he stores supplies for his company, Acts II Construction, Inc.--on his private business property along U.S. Route 11. The trailer displays a gospel message to each direction of highway traffic and is one of many ways in which Burritt uses his property to evangelize.

He was cited that year by Gouverneur town officials over the message, but the charges were dropped after interaction with ADF attorneys. Burritt then received a letter in May 2008 from NYDOT stating his trailer was in violation of state law and would be declared a "public nuisance." NYDOT asserted that the trailer required a permit and must be removed or face forcible removal and legal action, even though it does not require permits for similarly displayed commercial messages.

ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit, Burritt v. New York State Department of Transportation, in June 2008 with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleging the state violated the Constitution through its discriminatory treatment of Burritt's speech. After filing, an agreement was reached with NYDOT to let the trailer remain until a ruling could be rendered. The court issued a preliminary injunction last December preventing NYDOT from removing the trailer sign while the rest of the case was being litigated, and denied the state's motion to dismiss the case.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

No "enemy combatants" any more

We read:

"The Obama administration said Friday that it is abandoning one of President George W. Bush's key phrases in the war on terrorism: enemy combatant. But that won't change much for the detainees at the U.S. naval base in Cuba - Obama still asserts the military's authority to hold them. Human rights attorneys said they were disappointed that Obama didn't take a new stance.

The Justice Department said in legal filings that it will no longer use the term "enemy combatants' to justify holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

The Obama administration's position on use of the phrase "enemy combatants" came in response to a deadline by U.S. District Judge John Bates, who is overseeing lawsuits of detainees challenging their detention. Bates asked the administration to give its definition of whom the United States may hold as an "enemy combatant."

The filing back's Bush's stance on the authority to hold detainees, even if they were not captured on the battlefield in the course of hostilities. In their lawsuits, detainees have argued that only those who directly participated in hostilities should be held.

"The argument should be rejected," the Justice Department said in its filing. "Law-of-war principles do not limit the United States' detention authority to this limited category of individuals. A contrary conclusion would improperly reward an enemy that violates the laws of war by operating as a loose network and camouflaging its forces as civilians."

"In an unprecedented move, Australia's communications regulator has threatened to fine a company up to $11,000 a day for indirectly leaking part of its top-secret list of banned internet web pages. The action by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has wide ramifications for media companies, online publishers, web hosting suppliers and any organisation that publishes feedback from readers or customers on their website.

On March 10, ACMA issued Sydney web hosting company Bulletproof Networks with an "interim link-deletion notice" for allowing its customer, the Whirlpool internet community website, to post the link to an anti-abortion web page blacklisted by the regulator. Whirlpool is a popular website with around 276,000 members who regularly provide comments on the internet and broadband in Australia.

The interim notice, obtained by The Australian, stated that on February 19, ACMA received information that a Whirlpool forums page "may contain links to other websites that may contain 'prohibited content' or 'potentially prohibited content'". According to the notice, ACMA determined that end-users in Australia could access the content on the blacklisted web page.

Saturday, March 14, 2009

"On Wednesday night, Don Feder's Republican Club-sponsored speech on hate crimes was abruptly cancelled due to a high level of disruption by student protestors.

"Feder refused to speak anymore," said University of Massachusetts student Greg Collins, president of the UMass Republican Club, of the official reason for the event's cancellation. "Overall, I don't believe he spoke for more than 10 minutes."

In response to the event's cancellation, many UMass students - and even alumni - have commented on Dailycollegian.com: Some speak with anger at Feder's views, others with a defiant belief in some of the points he made. But more than anything else, most have commented with disgust that none of these views were able to be explored at a deeper level because those who disagreed with Feder disrupted the event to such an extent that he no longer wished to speak to his audience.

"University Police have stopped their investigation of what students called offensive, anti-Palestinian fliers that were posted near McKeldin Library last Tuesday after determining no crime had been committed, officials said.

The fliers will be reported as a hate incident to the FBI in end-of-the-year crime statistics because they were offensive to a specific cultural or religious group, said University Police spokesman Paul Dillon. But because they did not incite violence or pose a threat, they could not be considered a crime, he added.

Police launched an investigation after being contacted by university President Dan Mote last week, Dillon said. He said police interviewed students, read complaint e-mails and reviewed surveillance video, but determined posting the fliers did not break the law.

The police had respect for free speech that the university president lacked. Kudos to them and shame on the head of an institution that is supposed to be dedicated to the free exchange of ideas.

But here's the funny bit:

"In the fliers' aftermath, university officials want to create a campus-wide dialogue about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, said Gretchen Metzelaars, director of the Stamp Student Union. The week after spring break, student leaders will meet to plan a summit, which is tentatively scheduled for April. Students will be invited to the summit to speak freely about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Metzelaars said.

Do they SERIOUSLY think that the Muslim students will allow any real dialogue with Jews? Or is it only Muslims who will be invited to "speak freely"?

Friday, March 13, 2009

HBO, Mormons square off over airing of sacred rite

Is there no such thing as privacy anymore?

"HBO on Tuesday defended its plans to depict a sacred Mormon temple ceremony in an upcoming episode of `Big Love.' The drama about a Utah polygamous family will show an endowment ceremony Sunday. HBO said it did not intend to be disrespectful of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and apologized. . But the ceremony is an important part of the `Big Love' story line, HBO said. .

On Monday, Mormon church leaders criticized HBO for its decision to include the ceremony and said airing the material shows the insensitivity of the network's writers, producers and executives."

Since Walt died, Disney has fallen to the hands of a typical media Leftist

"Walt Disney Company CEO Robert Iger scowled at and said "f--- you" to Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, at Tuesday's annual Disney shareholder meeting.

Iger's remark came after Borelli told shareholders about Iger's refusal to sell the DVD or the distribution rights of the miniseries "The Path to 9/11."

Borelli had just ended his presentation and was attempting to shake Iger's hand on his way back to his seat. Iger, who was sitting in the audience at the time, also refused to uncross his arms and shake Borelli's hand. Borelli, who had received applause from fellow shareholders after his presentation, went back to the podium and precisely reported to his fellow shareholders what Iger had just said, to gasps from the assembled crowd. Borelli then sat back down.

"The Path to 9/11" is a miniseries based on the federal "9/11 Commission Report." The miniseries aired in 2006 on the Disney-owned ABC television network. The shareholder meeting was held at the Paramount Theatre in Oakland, California.

"So much for the family-friendly Disney reputation," said Borelli. "Shareholders have a legitimate concern about the political and financial implications of Iger's actions. It wasn't until today that the depths of his contempt were revealed."

Borelli, who was attending the meeting on behalf of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund with which he is affiliated, registered a shareholder proposal asking the company to be more transparent about the company's political donations due to concerns about Iger possibly using the company's assets to advance Iger's personal political agenda. Borelli cited Disney's refusal to sell the DVD or its rights to "The Path to 9/11" miniseries as evidence of iger's bias. Iger is a long-time donor to liberal politicians and the miniseries was thought to be embarrassing to officials who served in the Clinton Administration. Withholding distribution of the DVD for personal political reasons would be a conflict with shareholder interests.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Must not criticize football team management

Is nobody able to take criticism these days?

"Dan Leone says he was fired from Lincoln Financial Field after expressing anger over the Philadelphia Eagles' failure to re-sign free agent safety Brian Dawkins in a Facebook post. Leone has run the front gate at the stadium for five years since working his way up from the guest services gate.

The Facebook post was up for two days, and Leone says he immediately apologized when his boss questioned him about it. However, Leone says his boss thought he no longer represented the team well because he didn't make them look good as a front-line staff member, MyFOXPhilly.com reports.

"The lawyer representing an Australian charged for republishing, on a video-sharing site, a video of a man swinging a baby around like a rag doll says that if the case proceeds every Australian who surfs the net could be vulnerable to police prosecution. Chelsea Emery, of Ryan and Bosscher Lawyers in Maroochydore, represents Chris Illingworth, who was charged with accessing and uploading child abuse material. Illingworth, 61, published the three-minute clip on Liveleak, a site similar to YouTube but focused on news and current events.

Illingworth has uploaded hundreds of videos to the website. The one he was charged over, thought to have been created by a Russian circus performer, had already been published widely across the internet and shown on US TV news shows. The clip can still be found online and has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times.

Emery said the case was a unique test of Australia's laws regarding internet use and the implications of the charges were enormous for every user of the internet. Illingworth faces a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment for each charge.

Queensland Police's brief of evidence, handed to the defence last month and seen by this website, centres on a witness statement from Susan Cadzow, specialist pediatrician at Royal Brisbane Children's Hospital. The footage, viewed by Cadzow, shows an adult male vigorously swinging a baby by the arms but at the end of the clip the baby is shown laughing and smiling. Cadzow thought it represented child abuse.

Illingworth, a father of four, had no involvement in the creation of the video. He says he has been admitted to hospital several times since being charged and claims the stress of the case has exacerbated his health problems.

"This charge could impact on every Australian who surfs the net, downloads a file and shares it with others," Emery said. "In theory this could extend to people who just pass on amusing emails and email images which seem to criss-cross work computers every day. "Some of these emails contain images which poke fun or belittle certain people. Does this mean any depicting children, even in a humorous way, could be deemed abuse?"

The arresting officer, Detective Senior Constable Richard Libke, said in his witness statement that a forensic search of Illingworth's home and work computers found no items or images of interest. Illingworth has no criminal or traffic history. He is next scheduled to appear in Maroochydore Magistrates Court on March 19.

He said he posted a disclaimer under the clip on Liveleak warning people of potential injuries resulting from copying the behaviour depicted and asked anyone with information on the origins of the video to contact Liveleak.

Emery questioned the prosecution policies of Queensland Police's Task Force Argos, which investigates online predators and child abusers. "Who made the decision to prosecute a man with child abuse-related charges for sharing a file he did not create, of images not filmed in Australia, taken from a foreign website?"

Queensland Police said it was a crime "to participate in the exploitation and abuse of children by seeking to view, possess, make or distribute child-abuse or child exploitation material". It provided a definition of "child-abuse material", which was any material that shows a person under the age of 18 who "is, or appears to be, a victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse".

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Film director slammed for comparing France's illegal immigrants to Jews in Nazi Germany

The comparison is a stupid and obnoxious one but the conservative French government quite properly confined itself to criticism of the claim rather than trying to take legal action against the speaker.

"France's immigration minister criticised a film director today for likening the situation of illegal immigrants in France today to that of Jews under the Nazi occupation during World War Two.

Director Philippe Lioret - whose film 'Welcome' about illegal immigrants trying to reach Britain from northern France opens on Wednesday - has criticised a French law that makes it a crime to help illegal immigrants. 'To see that a decent guy can all of a sudden be charged and that he can go to prison is crazy. It feels like it's 1943 and we've hidden a Jew in the basement,' Mr Lioret told regional newspaper La Voix du Nord last week.

Some 76,000 Jews were arrested in France during World War Two and taken to concentration camps such as Auschwitz, where most died. Those found to be hiding Jews faced a similar fate.

Immigration Minister Eric Besson told Europe 1 radio that comparing the plight of Afghans in the northern town of Calais to that of Jews during the occupation was 'intolerable' and that Lioret had 'crossed the red line'. 'I have the impression that the film's promoters are committing a deliberate slur, no doubt with the intention of increasing publicity for the film's release,' he said.

Old-fashioned expression used to describe dangerous people gets British Conservative into trouble

We read:

"A Tory councillor could be charged with committing race crimes after he claimed gypsies would 'stick a knife in you as soon as look at you'. Robert Fraser also appeared to say that Romany gypsies made Irish travellers 'look like complete amateurs' when it came to fighting. The 59-year-old made the controversial remarks at a public meeting to discuss proposals to build a traveller site near a village in his constituency.

Unbeknownst to Cllr Fraser, his speech was filmed and later posted on the internet, where it has been seen by hundreds of viewers. In the video Cllr Fraser is asked by a member of the audience about crime levels. He replied: 'The Romanians - they'll stick a knife in you as soon as look at you. 'There might be some good ones....

He also told the audience: 'By gosh, some of these European ones, they make the Irish look like complete amateurs and I would dread, I would dread, to see them in Groby.' Hundreds of local residents attended the meeting two months ago to discuss the proposed travellers' site near the picturesque village of Groby, Leicestershire.

Now Leicestershire Police are examining the footage to decide whether his comments constitute inciting racial hatred.

"Roma" or "Romani" is the name Gypsies use for themselves. Many but not all live in Romania, where they are a despised minority. Despite claims to the contrary, I think it is clear that the councillor had in mind the Romanian Gypsies rather than Romanians generally. And it is certainly true that the Gypsy lifestyle is heavily dependant on crime, theft in particular.

'Stick a knife in you as soon as look at you' is an old-fashioned way of describing dangerous people rather than being intended literally. And some Gypsy activities -- such as stealing little children -- are undoubtedly dangerous. I would certainly not want one of their encampments anywhere near me.

"Gypsy" is a corruption of "Egyptian" but the Roma in fact appear to have originated in North India. They are generally of swarthy appearance.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Must not predict the death of Leftists

Even very ill ones.

"On his radio show Friday, Rush Limbaugh suggested that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) would be dead by the time health care reform legislation passes. "Before it's all over, it'll be called the Ted Kennedy memorial health care bill," the talk show host says...

I'm sorry but this is the second republican or so-called conservative that has been outrageously rude by discussing the possible death of a famous person. First it was U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning that predicted that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be dead from pancreatic cancer within nine months. Now Rush Limbaugh is predicting that Sen. Ted Kennedy would be dead by the time health care reform was passed.....

I don't care how famous you are, television or radio, if you talk like this about another human being (that is currently undergoing health issues) you should be removed from your job. Some of you will say, "but he's got a huge following"; well sorry, but so did Hitler.

"A spokesman for the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado on Wednesday condemned remarks made Monday by state Sen. Scott Renfroe when he called homosexuality an "abomination" and an "offense to God" in a debate over a bill to extend health benefits to same-sex partners of state employees.

"As a Christian, I am profoundly saddened by the hate speech uttered by Sen. Renfroe in the name of God," the Rev. Richard Craft, interim pastor at Family of Christ Presbyterian Church of Greeley, said in a statement.

Since the Bible makes clear that homosexuality is an "abomination" and an "offense to God" (See for instance Romans chapter 1) this guy is a strange Christian. That he is a spokesman for the Interfaith Alliance sounds pretty wishy-washy so I suppose a weak attachment to the Bible has to be expected of him. Why do these people pretend to be Christians while at the same time rejecting the teachings of Christianity? He probably thinks the Bible is a book of old fairy stories too. He needs to find another job.

Monday, March 09, 2009

Jewish Slur??

An email below from an old friend now living in China

"A new ad on China's state-owned-commercial network CCTV9 English Channel features a new cold medicine in adult and children's bottles - labelled Kike, and L'il Kike. The ad features a green superman with blond wavy hair and his similarly clad and tonsured boy wonder.

"A court in Germany fined a man 1800 euros ($3591) for inadvertently passing on an SMS text message which told the recipient they had just killed a Turk by opening it, his lawyer said.

Shortly before Germany defeated Turkey in last year's Euro 2008 soccer tournament, the 28-year-old sent a message that in German read "by opening this SMS, you have killed a Turk."

The recipient was also urged to forward the SMS to encourage a "clean" tournament, landing the man in court charged with inciting racial hatred, his lawyer Karl Laible said today. About 3 per cent of Germany's population are of Turkish origin.

However, the court in the southern town of Lindau dropped the charge - which could have led to a prison sentence - in exchange for the fine due to uncertainty about the accusation and the man's motive, he told Reuters.

The man had been forwarded the message and accidentally sent it to the name at the top of his phone's address book last June, Laible said, adding that he had done so only once.

Sunday, March 08, 2009

Must not disagree with sharpie Sharpton and his NAACP brethren

We read:

"For years, New York City's flagship main Public Library has annually honored a group of "literary lions." Long a civil rights and civil liberties lion, Michael Meyers, born in Harlem, is a former assistant director of the NAACP; personal assistant to its late executive director, Roy Wilkins; and a protege of one of my mentors, Dr. Kenneth Clark. Clark's research influenced the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education ruling that declared public-school segregation unconstitutional. Yet on Feb. 21, at the annual meeting in New York of the century-old NAACP, Meyers, refused permission to speak, was removed by NAACP security.

The meeting was held in the midst of a furor of protest by the Rev. Al Sharpton and other black public figures over a cartoon by the New York Post's Sean Delonas showing a chimpanzee shot and killed by the police (as had just actually happened to a pet chimpanzee gone berserk). Said one of the cops: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

Interpreting this as a racist attack on President Barack Obama, NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous and its chairman, Julian Bond, had joined the angry chorus of protesters calling for a boycott of the New York Post, and the firing of the cartoonist and the paper's editor. They have worked to make this a national issue if these demands were not met.

Meyers, a widely publicized defender of the First Amendment, had publicly objected to "this exercise in sheer racial rhetoric," adding: "Demagoguery is not the standard of effective leadership in addressing serious social justice issues." Meyers has often written and lectured on race relations, police abuse, housing and education. And as a passionate civil libertarian, he said of the rage to punish those connected with the cartoon: "All political pundits deserve a wide berth for social criticism and for parodying and poking fun at and criticizing our political leaders, no matter the skin color or race of the public official."

Illinois High School Association: Private schools can't pray before games

We read:

"Alliance Defense Fund attorneys urged the Illinois High School Association in a letter sent Wednesday to terminate its policy banning private schools from praying or delivering religious messages over public address systems before IHSA tournament games hosted at private schools. ADF attorneys also offered the IHSA free legal representation in the event it is sued for rescinding its new rule if it decides to do so.

"Christians shouldn't be censored from expressing their beliefs, and especially not on their own private property," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman. "It is blatantly unconstitutional for public school officials to come into private schools and enforce a policy prohibiting them from expressing what's central to their religious beliefs."

After allegedly receiving a few complaints from people who didn't like the prayers and religious announcements at the private schools, IHSA instituted a new rule prohibiting all prayer or religious messages given over PA systems prior to IHSA state series events, even when they are held on private school property.

The ADF letter to IHSA Executive Director Dr. Marty Hickman explains that the new policy is both needless and unconstitutional because private schools' prayers and religious announcements prior to games are in no way a state endorsement of religion.

Saturday, March 07, 2009

Docs Seek to Ban Negative Comments by Patients

We read:

"The anonymous comment on the Web site RateMDs.com was unsparing: "Very unhelpful, arrogant," it said of a doctor. "Did not listen and cut me off, seemed much too happy to have power (and abuse it!) over suffering people."

Such reviews are becoming more common as consumer ratings services like Zagat's and Angie's List expand beyond restaurants and plumbers to medical care, and some doctors are fighting back.

They're asking patients to agree to what amounts to a gag order that bars them from posting negative comments online.

"Lawyers for the Alliance Defend Fund, a Christian civil rights group, claim a university police officer threatened to arrest Lafayette resident Jeremy Sonnier and three friends if they didn't stop voicing their religious views on school property.

But the state-funded school says it has a right to set limits on the time, place and manner of free speech on its Hammond campus.

Today, Sonnier's lawyers are scheduled to ask U.S. District Judge Ivan Lemelle to temporarily block the university from enforcing its speech policies.

Friday, March 06, 2009

Police exceeding their powers?

We read:

"No charges were filed Sunday, but police told the woman she must take down the handwritten sign on a fence on her property saying, "I rent three bedrooms [at her address to] white people Niagara Falls."

The 53-year-old woman told police she put up the sign after someone tried to break into her house and added, "I can do what I want. I live in America," according to a police report.

Police said they received complaints and she must take the sign down. An officer at the scene said the woman agreed to take down the sign under protest. The officer said the woman already had seven more signs she was planning to hang up.

"Four executives of Google - call them the Milan Four - are on trial in Italy for the crime of being employed by Google when an objectionable video was posted to a Google video site. The charges are defamation and privacy violation. The accused face jail time. The video showed teasing of a boy with Down syndrome. As soon as Google was told about the posting, the company removed it. According to reports, the four were not even `directly involved in hand[l]ing video from Italy.' Obviously, this is not a just prosecution."

Thursday, March 05, 2009

Christian Group Allowed to Return to Ohio Campus -- maybe

We read:

"A Christian group that claimed it was banned from the campus of Wright State University in Ohio because of its religious standards has been reinstated. Members of the Campus Bible Fellowship said they were informed late Monday that they would be allowed to resume holding meetings on the Dayton campus. The reinstatement came after repeated media requests to school officials.

"We're good for now, but come May, we'll be up against the same qualifications they refused us on this time," said Gary Holtz, 62, a Campus Bible Fellowship organizer. "I believe because of public pressure [school officials] changed their case." Holtz said the college banned the fellowship from holding meetings on campus Jan. 30 because the group refused to adopt university-mandated nondiscrimination language. Adhering to the college demands would have prevented the fellowship from requiring that voting members adhere to religious and behavioral standards, he said. University officials also objected to the group's requirement in its constitution that voting members be practicing Christians, Holtz said.

A fellowship member, Joseph Hollaway, said Tuesday that he received an e-mail indicating that the group could meet on campus through the end of the year. He said the group did not submit a revised constitution to university officials.

Dr. Rick Danals, director of student activities at Wright State, said the fellowship had been denied campus privileges because of incomplete registration forms. "They weren't fully registered because they failed to submit the university nondiscrimination clause as part of their constitution," Danals told FOXNews.com Tuesday. "We do allow groups to organize based on their values and beliefs; however, we don't allow groups to discriminate people." The fellowship, which has had more than 20 members in previous semesters, didn't include clauses concerning gender identity and military status in its equal opportunity policy statement that are "required by all student groups on campus," Danals said.

Despite the college's assurance that the group can meet on campus this Friday, Hollaway says he has his doubts. "We were seeking to protect ourselves as a group and what we stand for," he said. "It's a constitutional matter of freedom."

Following their ban from campus, Campus Bible Fellowship representatives contacted Robert Shibley, vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, who informed Wright State University President David Hopkins of potential legal ramifications. "They could be sued for violating the First Amendment rights of the Campus Bible Fellowship, and that's a lawsuit they would almost certainly lose," Shibley told FOXNews.com on Monday. "College campuses are supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, and the affect of Wright State's decision would be to reduce the amount of diversity on campus."

"Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed a lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of parents and students at Lakeview Elementary School in Wilson County after school officials ordered "God Bless the USA," "In God We Trust," and other phrases referencing God and prayer to be covered up on posters before they could be displayed in the school's hallways. The posters were hand-drawn by students and their families to announce "See You at the Pole," a voluntary, student-led prayer event held outside of class time.

"Christian students shouldn't be censored for expressing their beliefs," said ADF Senior Counsel Nate Kellum. "It's ridiculous as well as unconstitutional to cover up these references to God and prayer--one of which is the National Motto itself--on posters announcing a student-led activity. School officials appear to be having an allergic reaction to the ACLU's long-term record of fear, intimidation, and disinformation, despite a previous court ruling at this very school that said students can observe these types of events on school property."

The American Civil Liberties Union previously sued the school to stop it from recognizing such events, including "See You at the Pole" and the National Day of Prayer. In May 2008, a federal judge refused to grant the ACLU's request.

Each year, students and parents affiliated with Lakeview Elementary School in Mt. Juliet have placed posters in the hallways of the school informing students of the "See You at the Pole" event. This year, each poster, made on personal time without the use of any school funds or supplies, included the disclaimer: "See You at the Pole is a student-initiated and student-led event and is not endorsed by Lakeview Elementary or Wilson County schools." Nevertheless, the students and their parents were ordered to cover up references to God and prayer and any Scripture passages on the posters or else they could not be posted.

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Naughty Harry again

Looks like he takes after his grandfather, Prince Philip, who is well-known for speaking his mind

"Prince Harry's sins against multicultural orthodoxy just go on multiplying. The 24-year-old second son of the heir to the British throne is currently a lieutenant in the British army, having graduated from Sandhurst Military Academy in 2006. He has recently been in hot water, since being seen, on an old video, calling fellow Sandhurst cadets "Paki" and "raghead." (The former colleague was from Pakistan, the latter had camouflage netting on his helmet.)

Now, in a new outrage to our sensibilities, black comedian Stephen Amos has told the world that the prince said, on first meeting him, "You don't sound like a black chap." The prince's commanders, having been revived with smelling salts, ordered him to attend an "equality and diversity" course--his second, as British military training routinely includes such a course. This second course, we are assured, will be "more intensive" than the first. Perhaps the prince will be waterboarded until he screams out his eagerness to celebrate diversity.

"A judge in one of the nation's most brutal carjacking and murder cases has openly questioned in court whether news websites - such as those covering his trial - should be permitted to allow open and anonymous "comments" sections at the bottom of Internet-posted stories. "I'm saying if there is a profit, there is a responsibility that goes with it," said Criminal Court Judge Richard Baumgartner of Knox County, Tenn., to an attorney for the Knoxville News Sentinel. "This is not the Internet. This is a site created by you in which you invite comments," the judge stated. "This is something you control."

Richard Hollow, the newspaper's attorney, argued that a court-imposed policy on the "comments" sections would be an unconstitutional infringement of First Amendment free speech rights. "What the court is asking us to do is . set up a board of censorship," Hollow said.

The legal wrangling is part of the trial of five suspects charged in the January 2007 carjacking, rape and murder of Channon Christian, 21, and her boyfriend, Christopher Newsom, 23, in Knoxville, Tenn. As WND reported, five defendants face nearly 50 counts of kidnapping, robbery, gang-rape, murder and theft charges after Christian and Newsom were abducted, assaulted and tortured repeatedly over a period - probably of days - before being shot and killed. Details in the aftermath of the slayings were not widely released, leading to a flurry of speculation - much of it unfounded - on the grisly details of the crime.

Internet "comment" sections also became a hotbed of discussion with particularly racial themes, as the victims were white and alleged perpetrators black.

According to the News Sentinel, defense attorneys argued that the occasionally hostile and racially charged discussions, available online for the world to see, have made it nearly impossible to find jurors anywhere in the state of Tennessee whose minds have not been influenced by the anonymously posted comments.

An attorney for WBIR-TV, which along with the News Sentinel is specifically named in the petition, argued that the "comments" sections of their websites constitute a "giant bulletin board," and as such is protected by the First Amendment....

Thus far, only one of the five defendants charged in connection with the brutal carjacking case has been tried and convicted.

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

My favourite head of government. Whether he did or did not say what is alleged, the reaction to his alleged words is moronic or at least shows no sense of humor. Silvio, by contrast, is a great joker.

"The office of Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, has taken the unusual step of denying reports that he boasted to Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, that he had "given him his woman".

In a sotto voce aside during a Franco-Italian summit last week, Mr Berlusconi was said to have remarked, in a mixture of French and Italian, "Moi, je t'ai donne la tua donna" ("Me, I gave you your woman"), a reference to the Italian-born French First Lady, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy.

A spokesman said that Mr Berlusconi's actual remark - in French, which Mr Berlusconi speaks fluently - was "Tu sais que j'ai etudie a la Sorbonne" ("You know I studied at the Sorbonne."). Mr Berlusconi claims to have been a student in Paris. Officials at the Sorbonne say they have no record of this, though he may have attended a summer language course.

Two Italian lawmakers had said that they would lodge a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights over Mr Berlusconi's "sexist" remarks. Anna Paola Concia, of the left-wing Democratic Party, and Donata Gottardi, a leftwing Euro MP, said that Mr Berlusconi had breached the European Convention of Human Rights with "his repeated statements that offend female dignity".

" Argentina has reacted furiously to the CIA chief's warning that the country might be economically unstable, summoning the US ambassador to explain.

"We consider the statements an unacceptable interference in the internal affairs of our country - even more so coming from an agency that has a sad history of interference in the internal affairs in the countries in the region," Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana said at a news conference yesterday, referring to the CIA's involvement with South American dictatorships during the 1970s and 80s. He said the remarks were "irresponsible, unfounded and do not show respect".

CIA director Leon Panetta had made the comments to reporters the previous day, saying he had just been told that "there are some serious problems that we have to pay attention to in Latin America that involve economic instability". Asked which countries he was referring to, Mr Panetta said: "The concern particularly involved Argentina, Ecuador and Venezuela."

Since Argentina is, as usual, an economic basket-case, Panetta was just stating the facts. Neither democracy nor dictatorship seem to do Latin American countries any good. The only exception is Chile, where General Pinochet applied the ideas of Milton Friedman with such success that subsequent governments have not been game to depart too far from his policies

Monday, March 02, 2009

Connecticut puritanism lives: Must not mention guns on campus

We read:

"For CCSU student John Wahlberg, a class presentation on campus violence turned into a confrontation with the campus police due to a complaint by the professor. On October 3, 2008, Wahlberg and two other classmates prepared to give an oral presentation for a Communication 140 class that was required to discuss a "relevant issue in the media". Wahlberg and his group chose to discuss school violence due to recent events such as the Virginia Tech shootings that occurred in 2007.

Shortly after his professor, Paula Anderson, filed a complaint with the CCSU Police against her student. During the presentation Wahlberg made the point that if students were permitted to conceal carry guns on campus, the violence could have been stopped earlier in many of these cases. He also touched on the controversial idea of free gun zones on college campuses.

That night at work, Wahlberg received a message stating that the campus police "requested his presence". Upon entering the police station, the officers began to list off firearms that were registered under his name, and questioned him about where he kept them. They told Wahlberg that they had received a complaint from his professor that his presentation was making students feel "scared and uncomfortable".

"If you can't talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First Amendment?" asked Sara Adler, president of the Riflery and Marksmanship club on campus. "After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas."

Is the American national anthem politically incorrect? From the 4th verse:Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

Mohammad

"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane."

Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The double standard: Atheists can put up signs and billboards saying that Christianity is wrong and that is hunky dory. But if a Christian says that homosexuality is wrong, that is attacked as "hate speech"

One for the militant atheists to consider: "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -- Thomas Jefferson

"I think no subject should be off-limits, and I regard the laws in many Continental countries criminalizing Holocaust denial as philosophically repugnant and practically useless – in that they confirm to Jew-haters that the Jews control everything (otherwise why aren’t we allowed to talk about it?)" -- Mark Steyn

Voltaire's most famous saying was actually a summary of Voltaire's thinking by one of his biographers rather than something Voltaire said himself. Nonetheless it is a wholly admirable sentiment: "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I am of a similar mind.

The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.

The KKK were members of the DEMOCRATIC party. Google "Klanbake" if you doubt it

A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and "homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective discourse.

Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race. Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he could simply be mistaken or misinformed.

Categorization is a basic human survival skill so racism as the Left define it (i.e. any awareness of race) is in fact neither right nor wrong. It is simply human

Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?

If any mention of racial differences is racist then all Leftists are racist too -- as "affirmative action" is an explicit reference to racial differences

Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862

Gimlet-eyed Leftist haters sometimes pounce on the word "white" as racist. Will the time come when we have to refer to the White House as the "Full spectrum of light" House?

The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." -- Judge Learned Hand

Mostly, a gaffe is just truth slipping out

Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.

It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not to let your impressions carry you away."

"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica

Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech

The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

I despair of the ADL. Jews have enough problems already and yet in the ADL one has a prominent Jewish organization that does its best to make itself offensive to Christians. Their Leftism is more important to them than the welfare of Jewry -- which is the exact opposite of what they ostensibly stand for! Jewish cleverness seems to vanish when politics are involved. Fortunately, Christians are true to their saviour and have loving hearts. Jewish dissatisfaction with the myopia of the ADL is outlined here. Note that Foxy was too grand to reply to it.

NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here